From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:54:42 +0530
Message-ID: <2e78013d0803102324i66fa5376rca1bc3d250bc8317@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47D5150C.8090802@enterprisedb.com>
References: <47D505AF.4040101@postnewspapers.com.au>
<47D5150C.8090802@enterprisedb.com>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> According
> to oprofile, all the time is spent in TransactionIdIsInProgress. I think
> it would be pretty straightforward to store the committed subtransaction
> ids in a sorted array, instead of a linked list, and binary search.
Assuming that in most of the cases, there will be many committed and few aborted
subtransactions, how about storing the list of *aborted* subtransactions ?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pavan.deolasee@gmail.com, heikki@enterprisedb.com, craig@postnewspapers.com.au
Subject: Re: Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit
In-Reply-To: <2e78013d0803102324i66fa5376rca1bc3d250bc8317@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox